rb209_arable_potato_varieties_by_group

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description itself must convey behavior. It states that this is a filtered GET list, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return structure, empty-list behavior, or error handling for invalid potatoGroupId values.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the endpoint and core purpose. Every part contributes: 'GET', 'filtered list', 'filtered by potato group id', and the arable-crop qualifier. There is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter GET endpoint with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it specifies the resource, the filter parameter, and the domain context. It does not describe the shape of the returned variety list, but the complexity is low enough that this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents potatoGroupId as 'The potato group id to filter on.' The description adds the context that filtering is by potato group id and is only for arable potato crops, but it does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the operation as a GET that returns a list of potato varieties filtered by potatoGroupId. It distinguishes itself from rb209_arable_potato_varieties through the explicit 'filtered by potato group id' wording, though it does not name that sibling directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'only required for arable potato crops' provides some usage context, implying this endpoint is relevant only in arable potato scenarios. However, it does not explicitly contrast with rb209_arable_potato_varieties or state when to use the unfiltered alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.